Breaking News/Asia – Jan 11, 2016 – “While remembering the again-n-again cyclical recurrences of the blasphemous acts by Charlie Hebdo, a myriad of thorny questions besieges every logical mind – Which of the stimuli can be able to justify this venomous absurdity? – What objective can be achieved by insulting and disparaging one’s objects of sacredness? – What purpose can be served by manifesting such offensive profanes and blasphemies? – Except breaching, contravening and infringing the inter-faith peace and a state of cross ethnic harmony?” remind Post-doctoral academics and other scholars of ASEAN and SAARC regions.

“We have to strive for a ‘principal resolve’ for these highly condemnable cyclical blasphemous reappearances that become responsible for rupturing and breaching the cross-ethnic state of harmony and inter-faith peace environment.”

“And if, we fail, therefore, to respond at this highly susceptible and ‘subject-to-viciousness’ point, or if the global community continues to shy away from taking a ‘moral stand’, then, there can be no more justifiable reason for the pursuit of a global peace in a broader perspectives of cross-ethnic, cross-sectarian and inter-faith outlook, at the least realms of peace reconciliations!”

“This is not an offensive delinquency against a religious group, but the exasperations and dreadfully obnoxious manifestations of immorality, against all religions and the whole global creeds,” said Postdoctoral academics belonging to dissimilar and unalike articles of faith.

Higher judiciary-officials of Asian region strappingly condemned blasphemous acts and declared them ‘grave inter-faith violence’ by all means, at all vantages and from all perspectives, in a pronounced way by citing decidedly significant reference quote-marks from diverse scriptures.

The Dogma-notion of Free Speech:

‘Freedom of Speech’ is the narrative that is vastly and quite pretentiously used by certain quarters, to not only validate, but justify and vindicate the sacrileges, profanities and religious blasphemies.

The notion of an ‘absolute free speech’ serves as a pretext as well as the basic ‘construct of interpretation’ for the motives ahead of certain sentiments-injuring acts and the nefarious designs behind igniting the hatred inflaming.

Todays’ radical debate, as well as a serious communal-issue of the moment is, “… Mr. ABC holds an ‘absolute right’ to free speech”, or “…No compromises can be made on Mr. XYZ’s ‘freedom of expression’…” etc. These narratives are being narrated and re-narrated by many people so senselessly and inconsiderately, that it appears as if one has never paused for a moment and thought of the stark implications for what he or she is stating or endorsing of!

Does the ‘free speech’ notion hold an absolute value anywhere…? Even in the western culture…? Can ‘freedom of expression’ be meant for; over-riding the humane and ethical deeds – sabotaging the entire ethico-moral codes – bulldozing the whole cross-communal or inter-ethnic human values system…? These are some thorny questions posed over to the mind that holds some rationality, any sense of right and wrong, or at least, a more or less conscience or some scruples of righteousness within one’s self.

Exercising ‘free speech’, that may ardently injure or sensitively indignant a certain ethnicity, is criminalized, in almost all western countries. Henceforth, the sacrileges and profanities crossing all the limits of ethical or moral codes, and even in most of the cases abolishing all humanity-based values, cannot be rationalized, by any means or on any account, to be permissible or tolerable to mutilate, harm and detriment the inter-ethnic peace of global communities by planting the seeds of hatred abhorrence or blasphemies.

There exists nowhere in the world where licenses are granted that one can flagrantly say and blatantly express whatever he or she likes to; but reasonably, there are certain limits that one is supposed to be within.

However, pretty conversely, the kind of the ‘moral trait-outlook’ manifested by certain vagrant quarters, on the face of ‘free speech’, is neither justifiable, nor explicable on the least of any of the moral, ethical, judicial or humanitarian accounts!

Analyzing the Dogma-notion – An Open License to Free Speech?:

Advocating for an ‘open license’ to the ‘free speech’ and spreading the dogma-notion behind this, is nothing, but a clumsily and maladroitly ‘disgraceful-enough’ modality of ridiculous manifestations by deflated societies, having no acclimatization of moral perspectives.

While ‘advocating’ the tarnished-hatred, apparently, the ‘tender-keepers’ of free speech, along with their biased and discriminatory partisan means, present certain devious and deceitful arguments in wrapped misconceptions and logical-fallacies.

So thoughtlessly, not only to the extents of public spheres, but also many of the so-called communal ‘opinion-builders’ are onto the ‘dogma’, that they aren’t even aware of. More or less, completely side-tracking or ignoring the far-reaching corollary repercussions, the consequential upshots and the socio-moral reverberations associated therewith.

However, when it reaches to the end of the tether or the commonsense truss-leash, one can easily comprehend and realize the rationality-based questions that arise from such naive argumentative fallacies.

Examining the reason-index:

Now, for instance, let’s examine that: are these reason-indexes actually so, as they are dogmatized to appear or opinionated to spread out? Do these jargons and verbiages certainly provide some justifiable grounds for a ‘free speech’ without any limits? With an absolute built-in value capable to bulldoze all other values…? Especially when it comes to the sensitivities-based sentiments…?

These are not, but just some of the simplest questions out of an entire cluster of rationality- demanding enigma-paradoxes, that are serious-enough in their nature. Not only are questions enigmas, but, in a literal sense, these are the ‘essential morality-probes’ for a considerate mind that can hold to the state of affairs, when it comes to moral convictions. Henceforth, these ‘probes’ are to be dealt with great trepidations.

The Senselessness behind the ‘Talk of the Town’:

Today’s talk of the town, “Charlie Hebdo or Laurent Sourisseau (Riss) has an ‘absolute right’ to free speech”, is being repetitively narrated everywhere as senselessly as it could be and as thoughtlessly as it should be!

No need to mention, Charlie Hebdo has an evident track-record for stoking up the ‘flames of racial hate’ and promoting cross-ethnic rancor content and abhorrence that is progressively proceeding towards austere hatred revulsions and animosity conflicts. It has long continued to push hatred, revulsive and rhetoric pomposity through its satiric, magniloquence and a series of tarnish ads.

Charlie Hebdo has got notorious escalations in promoting ethnic hate throughout the globe, and henceforth, is labeled as a ‘hate-content-promotion-group’, by the academics.

SAARC Anti-blasphemy Commission presented a Deca-archic Strategic Action Plan, to address the dilemma, and made strong recommendations to build a cross-ethnic and interfaith sentimentalities-based consensus in the broad-based ethico-moral perspectives, concerning the sensitivities related to the subject-matter.

The Declaration of ‘Peace Martyrdoms’:

Cherif and Said Kouachi have been titled ‘Martyrdoms of Peace’. Special memorial services with high religious reverence have been paid in honor of the French Kouachi brothers.

The two brothers gunned down the Hebdo cursers for the reason of the repeated and cyclical blasphemous acts that French publisher, Charlie Hebdo used to carry out repetitively since 2006.

The two assassins, who eventually turned to be murdered by the French authorities and police consequently, have been declared as ‘Leading Inter-Faith Peace Heroes’ and ‘Protagonist Martyrdoms’, by the 1st ‘All Universities Inter-Faith Peace Observance’, unanimously.

Leader of the World Minorities Alliance J. Salik (Ex Pakistani Federal Minister of Minorities) supported the anti-blasphemy cause and made high condemnations on the blasphemous acts of Charlie Hebdo, and categorically cited for the sentiments of Vatican’s Pope Francis, concerning the sensitivity of the subject-matter. Though, the Vatican Pope’s statement didn’t justify the Hebdo murders, but nevertheless, quite noticeably and evidently, it provided an appreciably perceptible baseline and reference point position. “The Pope very clearly stated for what constitutes the conceivable principal base-line, concerning the subject under considerations,” learnt the cross-regional scholars at the 1st Inter-Faith Peace Observance.

“The Pope very clearly stated for what constitutes the conceivable principal base-line, concerning the subject under considerations,” learnt the cross-regional scholars at the 1st Inter-Faith Peace Observance.

Last year, the ‘in-absentia’ funeral services for Cherif and Said Kouachi were solemnly paid in Peshawar, Istanbul, Kabul Hyderabad Deccan, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia declaring Kouachi brothers martyrdoms. French authorities forbade the family members to hold their funeral in Paris. However, the ‘prevented funeral’ began to be commenced at different parts of the world. Initiated by Qadhi Aurangzeb Al Hafi and Allama Pir Muhammad Chishti, the memorials to honor them have been performed in almost 12 countries.

The IFPO conveners Justice (R) S.S. Paru, Dr. Fiaser N.M. and Dr. Bareera N.B., gave the opening and the closing discourses as well.

The IFPOs observed across the SAARC and ASEAN regions, were convened by academicians, councils of legislatures, different seminaries and leaders of political parties.